


I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



• 



J 



J 



HoUinger 
pH8.5 
Mill Run F3-19i 




REVIEW 




OF 



lll¥. Bl. BAPIAIL^S BIMriBl 



ON 



"American Slavery as being consistent with the 
Hebrew Servitude of the Old Testament/' 



SERMON 

Preached (by request) in SlieKapli*! Cinireli, Siiu^liuia, 
on' Wednesday, Mareli aTili, 1*«1, 

BY 

KEY HUGH BROWN, 

PASTOR OF THE U.MTED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH KA^T ^AIEM 
Washington County, N. Y. 



" Is not this the l\\6t I have chosen^ to lot the upprc:,;^! go fno, and 
that ve break every yoke ;"--Isaiah LVIII. 0. 



I»H.IOaE3 TE!3Sr 03E3I\rTS. 



NORTH A^'IIITE CREEK, N. Y. 
R. K. CROCKEH, WASHINGTON CO. lUST, PRINT. 
18G1, 



i^ 





REVIEW. 



" Let my people go, that they may servo ine in the wildernesa ;•* 
^ Ex. vii. 10. 

" Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
Tou, do ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophels;" 
Matt, vii, 12. 

'• Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousnesf?, f.nl 
his chambers by wrong; that useth his neij^hbours service wsthoss$ 
wages, and giveth him not fur his work ;" Jer. xxii, 16. 

" Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and eqisrf ;" 
Col. iv, 1. 



Christian friends; — at the urgent solicitatiojis of sereral 
individuals, belonging to different religious denominations, 
I have consented to reply to two very strange discourses 
lately delivered, one in defence of "American slavery as be- 
ing consistent with the Hebrew servitude of the Old Tes- 
tament"; and the other on "the character and influGRce ok 
Abolitionism." The first of these was delivered by Rev. 
Dr. Raphael, Jewish Raubi, in the Green street Jewish 
Synagogue, New York, on Jan. 4th, 186 1 ; and since re- 
peated, and published in the JVew York Herald and other 
newspapers. The second was preached by Rev. Heiry J. 
Van D)ke, pastor of the 1st Presbyterian Church, (0„ S») 
Brooklyn, N. Y., on Sabbath evening, Dec. 9th, 1860, and 
published at the time in several journals, and since m pam- 
phlet form, and most industriously and widely circulated; 
at least in this pait of the country. Although I did, pant 
ly consent, when first requested to reply to said discourses, 
yet on farther consideration I considered it perhaps wiser 
to let them pass merely for what they were worth, nmtil I 
was solicited a second time; and this partly accounts for 
the reason why I appear at so late a period with the follow- 
ing rejoinder. I v^ry much regret that the defence of 
some of the positions I shall feel constrained to advocate^ 
had not fallen into abler hands. And as regards tfce duty 
of ministers to preach on the subject of slarery, I h$.\e 
merely to say, that necessity is laid upon us, since Uk® ?L« 



frogs in Egypt, the lam) is swarming with philo-slavery ser- 
mons, and in a^iDost every hou^e. Besides this, the Bible 
makes it the duty of ministers to preach against all sin; 
and in Isa. Iviii. 1, it is said, "cry aloud, spare not; liit up 
thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their trans- 
gression, and the house of Jac(-b iheir sins." And in Ezek. 
ill. 17, "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto 
the house of Israel: theielore hear the word at my mouth, 
and give them warning from me." 

We shall endeavor then to notice the principal or most 
important parts or statements in both discourses with as 
much briefness and perspicuity as possible, not shunning to 
declare the whole counsel of God upon the s>ubject. As 
there is however a close similarity, in some places, between 
the discourses, we may here notice that our reply to one 
-will serve at the same time as an answer to the o;her where- 
in they correspond or agree. While ihen, it is specially 
our design to direct your attention to the subjects as dis- 
cussed in these sermons, yet as the application made us 
contemplated a farther and fuller account of the resem- 
blance, if any, between the Hebrew servitude of the Bible, 
and American slavery, and also their dissimilarity; we shall 
endeavor to embrace as far as possible the design contem- 
plated under the following method of arrangement. 

First, Review briefly the sermons of Rev. Dr. Raphael 
in defence of "American Slavejy, as being consistent with 
the Hebrew servitude of the Old Testament"; and of Rev 
Henry J. Van Dyke, on "the character and influence of 
Abolitionism," 

Second, Consider in a few words, the Hebrew servitude 
of the Old Testament. 

Third, Notice conciseljr what American Slavery is. 

Fourth, Point out some of the ditterences between the He- 
brew servitude of the Bible, and American Slavery. 

Fifth, Show that the word of God gives no sanction to 
American slavery, but condemns it. 

Sixth, Reply to some arguments, which are commonl? 
«8«d in justification of slavery. 



First, Review briefly the sermon of Rev Dr. Raphael, 
in defence of "American .slavery, as being consistent with 
tho Hebrew servitude of the Old Testament"; and of Rev. 
Henry J. Van Dyke, on "the character and influence of Ab- 
olitionism." 

And we shall notice first, the sermon ot Rev. Dr. Raph- 
ael. Eefore, however, entering directly on his discourse, 
allow us to preface with a few remarks. Dr. Raphael, it 
is well known, is a Jewish Rabbi, and therefore the impres- 
sion on the minds of some is, that he must know the He- 
brew of the Bible so profoundly that it is absolutely impos- 
sible for him to be mistaken on the subject of slavery; and 
that what he affirms respecting it, is, as true almost as the 
word of God itself. Now while we have no reason to 
doubt the learning or scholarship of the Rev. Rabbi, yet it 
is to be carefully observed, that of all expositors of the sa- 
cred oracles, the Jewish iJoctor's are the most miserable 
and deceptive. This arises from two causes, viz. their love 
in traditions, for it is a known fact that the Talmud is pre- 
ierred by them to the sacred Scriptures; hence our Saviour 
says of them in Matt. xt. 3, 9, "Why do ye also transgress 
the commandment of God by your tradition?" And "in 
■?ain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
mandments of men." The other cause arises from what 
Paul by the Holy Spirit says of them in ii Cor. iii. 14, 15. 
**But their minds were blinded: for until this Jay remain- 
eth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old 
Testament; which vail is done away »n Christ. But even 
unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their 
heart." You must bear in mind then, that the discourse 
comes from one, Rabbi though he be, concerning whom the 
Spirit of the living God asserts, "that his mind is blinded,*' 
and that in reading the law of Moses (and of course on 
servitude) there is "a vail upon his heart " C<4n you put 
confidence in the teachings of one who with the Old Testa- 
ment in his hand maintains, that the Messiah is not yet 
come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was an imposture. Ctr- 
tainly not. Hence -'the vail," spoken of by the Apost'e 
■was so impenetrable, that when delivering his seimon on 



akv^ry, although it was about noon of the day, the Herald, 
iu s-eporting the services at the Synagogue, says, "on eith- 
er side oi the rostrum or speaking desk burned wax tapers 
of large dimensions." 

But with there precautionary remarks, let us now notice 
the sermon. The Kev. Dr. selected for his text, Jonah iii. 
5 — 10, where the people of Nine%eh rep<?nted at the preach- 
ing ef Jonah, and God turned away the evil that he had 
said he would inf'ict up< n them. To suppose, however, 
Ihat the sermon preached from this text bears any resem- 
blance to the occasion on which it was delivered, (a nation- 
al iastday) would be a most eggregious mistake. The sub- 
\ect for discussion is divided by the Dr. into three proposi- 
tions: — "1st, How far back can we trace the existence ot 
slavery?" "2d, Is slaveholding condemned as a sin in Sa- 
cred Scripture?" And ''Snl, What was the condition of the 
slave in biblical limes among the Hebrews?" 

lo reviewing then each of these propositions, it cannot 
reasonably be expected that we can expatiate on every 
Btatement and expression made use of ; but we design to 
iiavestigate the truth or fallacy of all the leading aiguments 
employed, and also the bearing of each passage of the word 
of Godf s pressed into the service ior the support of slavery. 
And 1st, "How far back can we trace the existence of 
slavery?" In answer to this, the Lr. says, "we find the 
word ngehedf slave, which the English version renders "ser- 
vaat/' first used by Nor.h, who, in Genesis ix. 25, curses 
the descendants of his son Ham, by saying, ihey should be 
ngehed ngabadim, (or eveth avothim) 'the meanest of slaves.* 
or as the English version has it, "servant of servants," 
Hew In this there are three fallacies; first, there is no such 
<leSnitc term as the English word slave found in the origi- 
nal of the Scriptures; and the translators have never in a 
single instance translated evelh, nor any oiie of the original 
words into the definite term slave The word slave is not 
to be found in either the Old or New Testament Scriptures 
csLCcpt in two places; thus in Jer. ii. 14, it is said, "Is Is- 
rael a servant? is he a hopie-born slaveV' Put !*'>?'■? there 
is CO word in the Q;:^ia*i answering to the word slave ia 



•r> 



the English v<?rs)on, andhtnce the translators knowing this 
put the word slavt in italics. The other instance where 
you find the word slave or slaves is in Rev. xviii. 13, where 
it is said, "and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls 
of men." But the word here translated "slaves," is neith- 
er andrapoda, (slaves) nor t^ou/ot, (servants;) but somatoitf 
which is literally bodies. Bat second, the curse pronounced 
on Canaan is only a prediction, and not a rule of conduct, 
hence it proves nothing as regards the lawfulness of slave- 
ry, neither is there the slightest evidence that slavery was 
the thing predicted. And third, it is not true that Noah 
"cursed the descendants of his son Ham," as stated by Dr. 
Raphael. The passage in Gen. ix. 25, reads thus, "cursed 
be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his 
bietbren." It was not Ham then, but Canaan that was 
cursed; hence the curse is misapplied to the Africans; for 
they are not the descendants of Canaan, but ol other sons 
of Ham whom Noah did not curse. The devoted nations, 
however, whom God destroyed before Israel, weie descen- 
ded from Canaan; and the Hebrews, who had been servants 
in Egypt, took possession of the land of Canaan, and those 
of them that were not destroyed were reduced to tributa- 
ries. Now in this sense, Canaan, in his descendants, was 
"a servant of servants," that is, a servant to those who had 
been themselves servants in Egypt. Also the Canaanites 
have long since ceased to be a distinct people, and the pre- 
diction has long since been fulfilled. Canaan had eleven 
aonsj his eldest son, Sidon, founded the city of Sidon, and 
was father of the Sidonians and Phoenicians. His other 
ten sons, were fathers of as many tribes, dwelling in Pal- 
estine and Syria: Gen. x. 15 — 19. But Ham had three 
other sons, viz. Cush, Mizraim, and Phut. To the Cushites, 
or descendants of his eldest son, Cush, were alloted the 
southern regions of Asia, along the coasts of the Persian 
gulf. And to the sons of Mizraim were allotted Egypt, and 
Libya in Africa; and the first great empires of As'»yria and 
Egypt were founded by them: G^:"!). x. 6 — 14. It is evi- 
dei t then that Canaan, alone in his descendants, is cursed, 
and Him sr.I^ iiz ttit branch ot hi? po5 cri'y. H^nce it 



f«lT\^ . ''"^•'"^''^"" of the CnaanitiBh races to 
Israelfulfils the prophecy; and to them it wa. limited, and 
wi h them It expired. Part of the seven nations of the 
Canaaniles were made tributaries to the Israelites, when 
thfy took possession of their Jand; and the remainder by 
Solomon. 

But it is still objected, by the advocates of slavery, that 
though Canaan is the one named in ihe curse, it cannot re- 
ier specially to him, but to the posterity of Ham in general 
and so proves negro slavery. Now for proof of this Gen! 
IX. .2 ,s quoted, thus, "And Ham the father of Canaan, 
sasv the nakeuncs of their father, and told his two breth^ 
ren w.hou,."^ Then in v. 23rd, Shem and Japhet cover 
J^he.r father with a garment. And in v. 24th it is said, 
and J.oah awoke from his wine, and knew what hi. young! 
er son had done unto him.- It is argued from this, that the 
younger son here spoken of cannot be Canaan, as he wa. 
not the .o« but the grandson of Noah, and therefore it must 
me^n Ham. VVe reply, that whoever that "vounger son" 
was, Canaan is the only one cursed. BeHdes"this, the He- 
brew word Ben, or Beno, here translated sod, means 
also a grandson, Tims for example in Gen. xxix 5 
St IS scidj « know ye Laban the son (ben) of Na' 
hor.- But Lqban was not theson, but grandson of Nahor- 
Gen. xxiy 15, 29. Again, in Gen. xxxi, 28, Laban said 
to Jacob, and hast not .uffered me to- kiss my sons and my 
daughters;" and at v. 55:h of same chapter, "early in the 
morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons." But the con- 
text shews, that they were not his sons, but his grandsons 
Also ,n Ruth iv. 17, it is said, "there is a son born to Nao^ 
mi. But this child uas the 8on of Ruth, the daughter-in- 
law of Naomi, and hence her legal grandson. Farther in 
Ji Samuel xix. 24; it is said, "and Mephiboshcth the son of 
Saul came down to meet the king." But in ii Samuel ix. 
6„ we find, that Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan* 
and honce the grandson of Saul. And once more, it is said 
in i. Kings ix. 20; "the .h-Jving is like the driving of Jehu 
the son of Nimshi." But in the 2nd and 14th versts of the 
same chapter, we are told, that Jehu was the son of Jehosh- 



aphat, and hence he was the gra?,dson of Nimsli. Now in 
all these passages of the word of God, it is the same Hebrew 
word that is used in Gen. ix. 24: and there translated soUy 
meaning thereby that Canaan was the grandson of Noah 
and on him the curse was pronounced. But farther here 
it is to be noticed, that the Hebrew word Hakauton, trans- 
lated younger in v. 24tb means small or little. It is the 
very same word that is translated small in Ps. cxv. 13: 
**He will bltss them t! at lear the Lord, both small and 
great." And it is also the very same Hebrew word which 
is rendered little in Isaiah Ix. 22: "a little one shall become 
a thousand." It would then be a Lteral rendering of Gen. 
ix. 24, 25; were it translated thus; "when Noah knew what 
hia little grandson (Heb. Hakaulon beno) had dene unto 
him; he said, cursed bo Canaan; a servant of servants shall 
he be unto his brethren." We might here also ndd, that 
the curse pronounced on Canaan, was a cu'se to those who 
were under It, and not an institution to be encouraged for 
their advantage. It was a curse for a juit cause, and hence 
the very utmost that it would prove in behalf of slavery, is 
that it is a punishment for crimes. But what c.-imes have 
the negroes comraiited on the inhabitants of America that 
they should hold them in perpetual bondage? Let Dr. Raph- 
ael answer. 

Besides, if God haul predicted the enslavement of the Af- 
ricans, that would be no divine warrant for American slave- 
ry. It is the moral law, and not prophecy, that is to bo 
the rule of our conduct. If prophecy is to be the guide and 
standard of our actions, then the "betrayers and murderers" 
of Jesus Christ were justified in what they did, for they ex- 
actly fulfilled tie words of the prophets. But were they 
without blame? No verily. And hence Peter charges home 
upon them the guilt of crucifying the Lord of glory; he 
says in Acts ii. 23. "ye have taken, and by wicked hands 
have crucified and slain." 

But hear the Dr's. line of argument in "tracing back the 
existence of slavery." He asfcs "How came Noah to use 
this expression? How came he to know anything of slave- 
ry!" Now such language as this takes for granted that 



8 

the expression used by Koah, viz. "cursed be Canaan, a 
servant of servants shall he be unto his brclhren," meant 

slavery and nothing else. But this is one of tho points to 
be proved. The passage may appear to favor slavery to 
an individual reading it "with a vail upon the heart," and 
with the dim light of "a wax taper." But when viewed 
through a spiritual telescope— the mind enlightened by the 
Spirit of Chfist— there is not thr smallest spec of American 
slavery disceiiiable ia it. But hear the Dr's. supposition 
liow Noah carae to use the expression. He says, "1 he 
word slave and the nature of slavery must date from before 
the flood." Now is not this an inventioD -worthy a Jewiish 
Rabbi. When neither the word of God, nor the traditions 
of his own church will help him out of the difficulty; he 
constructs a bridge of hypothetical conjectures to span the 
mighty chasm, and then transporting himself into regions 
of mystecism exclaims; "slave and slavery were housihold 
words before the flood," and as children are early prone to 
learn bad expressions, he has made the discovery that Noah 
was once a child, and not only Icarricd, but trtasured up in 
his memory, "the sum of all villanie?," slave and slavery. 
AMiy in ii Ptter ii. 5, the Apostle tells us, that Noah was 
"a jreacher of righteousness," and hence we have reason 
to suppose, that the prediction deiaounced by hira concern- 
ing Canaan and hisdescendants, was by the spirit of proph- 
ecy. But on Dr. KaphaeFs method of interpretation, there 
raust have been a '.vorld before the present one, and inhabit- 
ed by exactly the f \me kinds of living' creatures, and known 
by precisely the ;ame names; and Adam must then have 
been a little boy, or in Gen. ii. 20; it is said, "And Adam 
gave nsmes to ; 1 cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and 
to every bea?t of \he field." But why contend for the an- 
tiquity of slaver ? Suppose it was older than the flood, 
would that be p: of that it is of divine appointment? Dr. 
Raphael seems t think so. But if the antiquity of a thing 
is evidence for ,■ .'hovab's approbation of it, then murder 
may be cornmittr 1 with impunity, and with the sanction of 
heaven, for Cain killed his brother long before the flood. 
And there is just as good grounds for maintaining, on Dr, 



Raphael's mode of reasoning;, that murder is a divine m- 
stitution, as to say that slavery is of God's appointnientj 
because Noah learned to lisp the words "slave and slavery 
before the flood." But before leaving this part of his sub- 
ject, the Dr. adds, "Noah did not bestow any blessing on 
his son Ham, but uttered a bitter curse against his descend- 
ants; and to this dfcy it remains a fact which cannot be 
gainsayed that in his own native home, and generally 
throughout the world, the unfortunate negro is indeed the 
meanest of slaves. I do not attempt to build up a theory, 
I state facts." Now where, we ask, are the "facts" in this 
statement? Is it, that Noah uttered a bitter curse ao-ainst 
the descendants of Ham? It cannot be, for in Gen. ix. 25, 
you will find the Dr's. "fact" to be a downright falsehood. 
But is it "a fact" that the negroes are descended from Ca- 
naan whom Noah cursed? Why the veriest tyro in history 
would i^ronounce such an assertion an untruth. And is it 
"a fact to this day which cannot be gainsayed," that the 
descendants of Canaan, are "in their own native home, the 
meanest of slaves?" Why the Bible informs us that God 
drove out the inhabitants of Canaan, that is, the descend- 
ants of Canaan whom Noah cursed, from before the He- 
brews; and the Canaan ites have long since ceased to be u 
distinct people. It is true, that many Africans, are desceB- 
dants of other branches of Ham's family, and that they 
have been cruelly enslaved; but so have other tribes in 
different parts of the world. But there is certainly mo 
proof that the. negro race were ever placed under the male- 
diction of Noah. But even suppose ihey were, that would 
not, as we have already said, justify the sin of slavehold- 
ing, nor prove that Christianity is not designed to remove 
the evil of slavery. This is all we consider necessary to 
say in refutation of the groundless assertions rnadc by th© 
Dr. under his first proposition. 

We come now to notice the second proposition ot Rev. 
Dr. Raphael, viz. "Is slaveholding condemned as a sin in 
Sacred Scripture?" 

In entering on a discussion of this topic the Dr. commen- 
ces in the following manner. "How this question can at 



10 

all arise in the mind of any man that has received a reli- 
gious education, and is acquainted with the history of the 
Bible, is a phenomenon I cannot explain to myself, and 
which fifty years ago no man dreamt of." Now is it a 
fact, as the Dr. here states, that "fifty years ago no man 
dreamt," that "slaveholding is condemned as a sin in Sa- 
cred Sciipturel" To show how little credit is to be placed 
in the statements of this learned Rabbi, permit me to no- 
tice a few of the early testimonies of some of the most 
learned, pious, and devoted philanthropists that ever 
adorned the pages of history. The Methodist Society, in 
1780, before the church was regularly organized in the 
United States, resolved as follows, "The conference ac- 
Ifnowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, 
man and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the 
dictates of conscience and true religion; and doing what 
we would not others should do unto us." And this was 
the unanimous opinion of the conference 80 years ago. 
Also, the Presbyterian church, in 1793, inserted the follow- 
ing note to the 8th commandment in the Book cf Disci- 
pline, as expressing the doctrine of the church on slave- 
holding: "i Tim. i. 10. The law is made for man-stealers. 
This crime among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it 
to capital punishment, Exodus xxi. 16; and the apostle 
,iere classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word 
he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are 
concerned in bringing any of the human race into Blaverj, 
or in retaining them in it. Stealers of men are all those 
who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or huy 
THEM. To steal a free man. says Grotius, is the highest 
kind of theft. In other instances, we only steal human 
property; but where we steal or retain men in slavery, we 
seize those who, in common with ourselves, are constituted 
by the original grant lords of the earth." This then was 
the decision of the Presbyterian church 63 years ago, and 
expressed in plain and forcible language. We have also 
the testimony of Wilberforce in 1788, a statesman who 
shone with brilliancy in the British Senate, even when men 
were dazzled with the splendor of Pitt and Fox. And 



11 

again in 1791, in the English parliament when he was sup- 
ported by Pitt, and Fox, and William Sraity, and Bailie, 
and other merabers, and this was 70 years ago. Jolin Wes- 
ley also, who was born in 1703, and ordained in 1725, and 
who rarae to America in 1735, declared "American slave- 
ry," to be "the vilest that ever saw the sun," and constitu- 
ting "the sura of all villanies;" and this was upwards of 
120} ears ago. And yet Dr. R. says, "fifly years ago no 
man dreamt that slaveholding is condemned as a sin in Sii- 
cred Scripture." Again, Bishop Warburlon, in 1676, 
preached a sermon, denouncing, in strong languao^e, those 
who "talk of prt-periy in rational creatures, as of herds of 
cattle;" and this sermon was preached 184 years ago. Dr. 
Porteus, Bishop of London, in 1788, vindicated the Bible 
against the asseition, that is sanctioned slavery — "Nay," 
(said he) "it clat-sed men-stealers or slave-traders among 
the murderers of fathers and mothers, and the most pro- 
fane criminals on earth:" and this was 73 years ago. 
George Whitfield in a letter to the inhabitants of Mary- 
land, Virginia, Nonh and South Carolina, in 1739, use J, 
among other expressions, the following language on the 
sin of slaveholding: He said, "as I lately passed through 
your pro\inces in my way hither, I was sensibly touched 
"with a fellow-feeling for the miseries of the poor negroes. 
Sure I am it is sinful, when they have bought them, to use 
them as bad as though they were brutes, nay worse; lor 
your slaves, I believe, work as hard, if not harder than the 
horses whom you ride. Your dogs are caressed and fondled 
at your table; but your slaves, who are frequently styled 
dogs or beasts, have not an equal piivilege. Not to men- 
tion what numbers have been given up to the inhuman 
usage of cruel taskmasters, who, by their unrelenting 
scourges have ploughed their backs, and made long furrows, 
and at leno-th brouoht Ihera even unto death." Now this 
language was used 122 years ago; and yet Dr. Raphael 
says, "no man fifty years ago dreamt" that it was a sin. 
But the time would fail me to speak of Bishop Horsley, 
Archdeacon Paley, Bishop Butler, John Jay, James Mon- 
roe, Edmund Burk, Blackstone, the jurist, and the learned 



12 

Giotius, all of whom denounced slaveliolding in.lhe most 
wnmeasured terms as a sin condemned by the Sacred Scrip- 
tures. Also in a pamphlet, entitltd ''ouservations on the 
American Ptevolution," and published by order of Congress, 
in 1779; that is, 82 years ago, the fcllowiog seiiliment, 
among others, is declared to the world, viz: The great 
principle (of government) is and ever will remain in force, 
that men are by nature free. What revives now, is the 
declaration of onr Lord, Matt. 25th chapter and 41st verse: 
"Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, depart 
from me ye cursed," &c. They also shall answer him, say- 
ing — "When saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a 
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not min- 
ister unto thee?" His answer then 30U may read, "Inas- 
much as you did It not to the least of these, ye did it not 
to me." But we notice farther, that in ihe period from 
1660 to 1760; that is, from 100 !o 200 years ago, slave 
holding was declared to be a sin condemned in the word 
oi God, by Morgin Godwin, Richard Baxter, Dr. Primalt, 
Griffith Hughes, rector of St. Liicy, and others. How then 
is it possible that Dr. Raphatl dared to make such an as- 
sertion, that "fifty years ago no man dreamt of slavehold- 
JEg being condemned as a sin in Sacred Scripture," when 
we iind men of almost every evangelical denomination of 
chiistians, for the last 200 years up to the present time, 
declaring it to be such. And then what caps the climax 
of the Dr's. effrontery is, the additional statement made by 
fatm, for he adds; "with a due sense of my responsibility 
I must stbte to you the truth, and nothing but the truth." 
Now we ask any candid man, did the Dr. "stale the truth, 
and nothing but the truth," when he said, that "fifty years 
ago no man dreamt of slaveholding being condemned as a 
sin in Sacred Scripture?" With the array of witnesses we 
have produced against him, we fearlessly assert before judge 
and jury, that he has concealed the whole truth; and that 
bis reputation as a witness for the truth, to say the least of 
iitj on the sin of slaveholding, is very suspicious. 

But the truth is, that not only have the most pious, and 
learned declared during the last 200 years, that "slavehold- 



13 

inc is a sin condemned in Sacred Scripture;" but the word 
of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments assert the same thing. Although this properly 
comes in under our fifth proposition, yet we may here say 
a word on it; and in Luke iv. 18; the text which our Sa- 
viour selected for his fast sermon, we have satisfactory 
proof, viz: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, be- 
cause he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; 
he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach de- 
liverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the 
blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach 
the acceptable year ot the Lord." And also, in the Old 
Testament, in Ex. xxi. 16, it is said, "He that stealeth a 
m?R, and sclleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he 
shall surely be put to death." Now observe, it does not 
say, "he that stealeth a slave and selleth him," nor "he 
that stealeth a man-servant, and selleth him," but "he that 
stealeth a man, shall surely be put to death." We ask then 
the Rev. In-. Raphael, "how readest thou?" Does not the 
word of God itself denounce the condemnation of heaven 
against the sin of slaveholding. 

The greater part however of this proposition is made Up 
of dtclamations against the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, 
and with which we have nothing to do. There is never- 
theless one attempt, and only one, made by the Dr. to prove 
that slaveholding is not condemned as a sin in the Sacred 
Scriptures, but sanctioned and commanded by the Almighty. 
Htar his argument and how he reasons; — "The property in 
slaves is placed under the same protection as any other spe- 
cies of lawful property, where it is said, "thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbour's house, or his field, or his male slave, 
or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or ought that be- 
longeth to thy neighbour," Ex. xx. 17. Now any reader 
of the word of God, yea, eveiy Sabbath School scholar, 
will at once detect the miserable trick attempted by theDr* 
in the above quotation. The commandment as it stands in 
the word of God reads thus, "Thou shalt not covet thy 
neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 
wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, 



14 

nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." But 
the Dr. in quoting the commanrlraent, puts a man's house, 
his field, his man-servant, his maid-servant, and his ox, and 
his ass, all In the s^me category, but insidiously leaves out, 
*'thy neighbour's wife." Now the individual, whether he 
be styled Dr. or Rabbi, or any thing else, who would stoop 
to such a wrelched subterfuge, as to mangle the command- 
ments of God, in order to prop up the sin of slavery, should 
be held m contempt by every conscientious, and Bible-lov- 
ing christian. Why Dr. Raphael, though pretending to 
teach others, "needs," in the language of Paul, in Heb. v. 
12, "that one teach him which be the first principles of the 
oracles of God." If however, as the Dr. says, "the prop- 
erty in slaves is placed under the same protection," by the 
tenih commandment, as a man's house, his ox, or his ass; 
is not the properly in slaves, by the very same command- 
ment, placed under the same protection as *'a man's wife." 
But does the marriage relation, by the law of God, make 
a man's wife his chattle? or does it degrade the wife to the 
level of the brute creation? Suppose however we admit, 
that the Dr. has proved from the tenth commandment, that 
"the property in slaves is placed under the same protection," 
as a man's ox, or his ass; that is, his light to buy and sell, 
and own as property, "man-servants and maid-servj nts," 
then it is evident, as we have already said, from the very 
same commandment, that a man has precisely the same 
right of property in his wife; and may therefore sell her, 
or convert her into a beast of burden. This is evident, for 
the commandment says, "Th( u shalt not covet thy neigh- 
bour's wile," as well as, "thou shalt not covet his man- 
servant, nor his maid-servant." The Dr. seems to tliink, 
that whatever belongs to an individual ihfit he can claim 
as his, is such in the sense of "property," that i,?, which he 
may sell, or dispose of in any way be may please. But a 
man's wife is Atv, and by virtue of the marriage relation, 
he can claim hcr as his own; and therefore, on tije Dr's. 
reasoning, his "property," to be so!d, or disposed of as any 
other ariide of merchandise. The Dr. reasons on the sup- 
position, tl.at a man's "wife," and his "man-servant," and 



16 

his "maid-servant," and his "ox," and his "ass," are all his 
by one and the same relation. But it is this, in which the 
fallacy of his argument consists, and hence by endeavoring 
to prove too much from the commandment, he has in reali- 
ty proved nothing; and in addition stands convicted of the 
crime of faking from the words of Sacred Scripture. The 
Dr. then has completely failed to prove under his second 
proposition, that "slaveholding is not condemned as a sin 
in Sacred Scripture," but commanded and sanctioned by 
the Almighty. The affirmative however of this proposition, 
viz. that "slaveholding is condemned as a sin in Sacred 
Scripture." we shall prove when we come to discuss the 
fifth thesis in our method of^ arrangement. 



We come now to review the third proposition of Rev. 
Dr. Raphael, viz. "What was the condition of the slave 
in Biblical times among the Hebrews?" 

Now it is in the disquisition of this problem that the 
Dr's. great strength seems to lie. But when stript of his 
sophistry, and the unwarrantable liberties taken by him 
with the word of God, (for he makes and unmakes Scrip- 
ture at hi? pleasure, and to suit his purposes) he will appeal* 
in his true colors strutting about in the borrowed plumes 
of another Legree, a real "man-stealer," trying to make 
"merchandise of the bodies and souls of men." And in 
order to prove the scripturality of American slavery, from 
the nature of the servitude in Biblical times among the He- 
brews, the Dr. displays considerable adroitness and cunning 
by wresting the Sacred Scriptures, and trying to make 
*'the worse appear the better cause " But hear him on 
this part of his subject; he says, "and here we must at once 
distinguish between the Hebrew bondman and the heathen 
slave. The former could only be reduced to bondage from 
two causes. If he had committed theft and had not where- 
withal to make full restitution he was "sold for his theft." 
(Ex. XX 11 — 13.) Or if he became so miserably poor that 
he could not sustain life except by begging, he had per- 
mission to "sell" or bind himself in servitude. (Lev. xxv. 
39 ) But in either case his servitude was limited in dura- 



16 

tion and characler. "Six years shall he serve, and in the 
seventh he shall go out free for nothing." (Exod. xxi. 2,) 
And if even the bondman preferred bondage to freedom, he 
could not, under any circumstances, be held to servitude 
longer than the jubilee then next coming. In fact, between 
the Hebrew bondman and the Southern slave there is no 
point of comparison. There were, however, slaves among 
the Hebrews whose general condition was analogous to fl at 
of his Southern fellow sufferer. That was the heathen 
slave, who w^as to be bought "from the heathen that were 
round about the land of Israel or from the heathen strang- 
ers that sojourned in the land." "They should be a posses- 
sion to be bequeathed as an inheritance to the owner's chil- 
dren after his death "forever." (Levit. xxv. 44 — 46.) Over 
these heathen slaves the owner's property was absolute'; he 
could put them to hard labor, to the utmost extent of their 
physical s-trength; he could inflict on them any degree of 
chastisement short of injury to the life and limb." 

That there were two kinds of servants among the He- 
brews we admit, and this we will speak more of hereafter 
when we come under our second head to consider, the He- 
brew servitude of the Old Testament; but that the second 
kind mentioned by the Dr. was as he describes it, we do 
most unequivocally deny. He admits, that "between the 
Hebrew bondman and the Southern slave there is no point 
of comparison." Br.the adds, "there were, however, slaves 
among the Hebrews whose general condition was analogous 
to that of his Soi thern fellow sufferer. And over these 
heathen slaves tl; . owner's property was absolute." For 
proof of this the 5 T. refers to Levit, xxv. 44 — 46. This 
passage we will he e quote in full as much of the question 
in dispute is made o rest upon it. It is as follows; "Both 
thy bond-men and hy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the he: then that are round about you; of them 
shall ye buy bond- aen and bond-maids. Moreover, of the 
children of the s' rangers that do sojourn among you, of 
them shall ye buy. and of their families that are wi*h you, 
which they begat in your land; and they shall be your pos- 
session: iind ye ^hall take them as an inheritance for jour 



17 

children after you, to inherit tliem for a posse^ision; thej 
shall be your bond-men forever." Now the Dr's. para- 
phrase ol the text is this, "The heathen slave, who was to 
be bought from the heathen that were round about the laud 
of Israel, or from the heathen strangers that sojourned in 
the land. They should be a possession to be bequeathed as 
an inheritance to the owner's children after his death "for- 
ever." As then this passage of Scripture is made th^ 
foundation on which the Dr. and his compeers, buiM their 
superstructure of American slavery, it will be necessary 
for us to consider it at some length. If the text will bear 
the construction put upon it by pro-slavery men, then there 
would seem to be some scriptural authority for hereditarj 
enslavement, at least among the Jews; but if the explana- 
tion given of it be forced and foreign to the text, then the 
whole system of slaveholding founded upon it tumbles in 
the ground. Before, however, we give you a critical anal- 
ysis of the passage, we wish you to observe, that in most 
all the portions of Scripture quoted by the Dr. in his ser- 
mon, he refuses to follow our present English translatioa, 
but gives his own version from the oiiginal; yet when he 
finds a passage, the English translation of which seems to 
favor his beloved scheme; he passes over in silence tfes 
Hebrew, as if it were the only correctly rendered passage 
in the whole Bible. You are not, however, from this t& 
suppose, that we find fault with our excellent translation 
of the Scriptures. By no means, but since the passage is 
the stronghold lor philo-slavery men — their MalakofF — their 
Fort Sumter — let us carefully examine it. The first then 
that claims our attention is the expression, "bond-men and 
bond-maids, of them shall ye buy, and they shall be yocr 
possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for 
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; 
they shall be your bond-men forever." Now the words as 
they stand in the original, the Hebrew, may be literally 
translated as follows; ''and they shall be to you for a pos- 
session, and ye shall as heirs possess yourselves of them^ 
with your children after you, to enjoy the possession; by 
them ye shall be served." The meaning supposed to be 



18 

conveyed by the English translation is this; that the bond- 
men became personal property, anu should be bequeathed 
as an inheritance to the slave owner's children alter his 
death iorever But the Hebrew words convey no such idea, 
for the criginal term "an inheritance," ireans that the 
agent acting is also the object of the act In other words, 
the inheritance simply belonged to the individual who 
bought the bond-men, but could not be bequeathed after 
his decease to his chikhen, for to him belonged the heir- 
ship). To make this still more plain, there are five expres- 
sions in the passage that we shall consider in order. These 
are "bond-men" — "buy" — "postession" — "inheritance" — 
and "forever." And 1st respecting the word "bond-men," 
it is considered proof by some, that servants procured from 
the heathen were called in Scripture "bond-men," while 
Ihose from the Hebrew^s are called "servants," and hence 
the former must have been slaves. This, however, is not 
the case, for the Hebrew word, eveth, which ought always 
to be translated servant, is sometimes rendered servant, 
sometimes a bond servant, and sometimes a bond-man. And 
the Hebrew word which the translators have rendered bond- 
men, in this passage, is the very same word w'hich they 
uniformly render servants in other places. To show then 
the absurdity of supposing that the heathen servants were 
slaves because called "bond-men," let us look at the use of 
the Hebrew word evdh, the plural of which is here transla- 
ted "bond-men." In i Kings xii. 7, the very same word is 
used by the old men to King Rehoboamj thus, "and they 
(the old men) spake imto him, (King Rehoboam) saying, 
^'If|thou wilt be a servant (Heb. eveth) unto this people this 
day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak 
good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever." 
Kow did the old men by this, advise Rehoboam to be a 
slave, a bond-man, or chattle property to the people, and 
his descendants forever, through all generations? Why the 
thing is absurd; and yet it must have been so, if the He- 
brew W'Ord translated "bond-man" means a slave. Again, 
in Isaiah xlir. ], the very same icord, avdi, is applied to 
Christ; thus, "Behold my servant j {avdi) whom lupholdj" 



19 

&c. And in Isaiah lii. IS, it is also said of Clirist, "Be- 
hold, my servant (avdi) shall deal prudently;" &c. But 
who will daie to affirm, from this, that the eternal Son of 
God by taking the mediatorial office on himself, and becom- 
ing man, \vas thereby reduced to the state of a bond-man, a 
slave: or that he ever ceased to be Jehovah the second per- 
son in the Godhead'? And yet this blasphemous absurdity 
we must believe, if the heathen servants among the Jews 
by being styled "bond-men" were therefore slaves. The 
truth is, the word is applied to all persons who do service 
for others; viz. to magistrates, to all the subjects of gov- 
ernments, to Prophets, to Kings, to the Messiah, and not 
less than fifty times, in respectful addresses, in the Old 
Testament". In the English language we have the word 
slave as well as servant, because we have the thing, we are 
sorry to say; but the Hebrew language had no word cor- 
responding to slave, or slavery, as meaning personal prop- 
erty or chatties. 

So much for the v\'ord "bond-men," and now let us notice 
the 2nd word, viz. "buy" — "of them shall ye buy (tiknu) 
bond-men and bond-maids." The inference that the word 
"buy," means procuring of servants as property or chatties^ 
is based on the fallacy; that whatever, or whoever you pay 
money /or \% an article of property, and the simple fact of 
paying for it proves that it is property. It is true, the En- 
glish word buy conveys, the idea of merchandise and of 
property; but the word in the original has no such idea 
attached to it. ft is the same word that is used lor marry- 
ing a wife. Thus in Gen. xxix, 15 -28; Jacob bought Kzr 
chaej an i Leah his wives, and paid for each of them to 
Laban seven years' work. Also in Ruth iv. 10: it is the 
same Hebrew word that is used; thus, "Moreover, Ruth 
the Moabitess, have I purchased to be my wife." And the 
prophet Hosea is said to have bought his wife; thus in 
Hosta iii. 2, ":?q 1 bought htr to me for filteen pieces of 
silver, and for an homer oi barley, and lor an half homei of 
barley." If then buying servants among the Jews proves 
that they were pro, erty, and if the fact oi iheir being 
bought is sufficient proof ; then the buying imvcs.shcynB 



20 

tisat they also were property, and the i'act th;it they were 
bought is sufficient eviilence. And remember, that the 
woids in the original which are used to describe the one, 
describe the other also. 

But farther on this point, we maintain, tliat if the word 
buy or bought, when applied to the heathen ''bond-man," 
proves them to be .4aves, that is property or chatties; then 
Iha Hebrew servants were also slaves of the same kind, 
and for the same reason But this Dr. Raphael, ; nd ids 
cojinpeeis v^ill not be willing to admit. And now for the 
proof ; thus in Ex. xxi. 2, "it thou buy (tikneh) an Hebiew 
servant, six yeais he shall serve: and in the seventh he 
shall go out fiee for nothing." Here we have the vtry 
same word '''buy^^ used in refeience to a free contract and 
ior free service. And in Jer. xxxiv. 14, it is likewise said, 
*^*at {he em! of seven years let }e go eveiy man his brother 
?m Ht^brew, which nath been sold unlo thee." But this 
surely cannot m< an, ihat the "brother Hebrew" bt-came a 
slave, or chaitle propt-ity, because it is said, ''which hath 
feeen sold unto ihee." And to come still closer to the 
poJ{it; in lev. XXV. 47, llievtry next verse to the one 
where we find the heathen servi.nts bought or engaged till 
the Jubilee, we have precisely the same thing with regard 
to a Hebiew servant engaged to a ht-alhen niaster till the 
Jubilee. It is there said 'Sell himself unto the stranger," 
Toiut in V. 51st this Hebrew servant is said to have been 
bought; thus, "out of the money tiiat he was bought for." 
And it is not a little remarkable, that the same word, and 
tlie Rume form of the wi.rd, which, in the 47th ver^e is len- 
dertd "^ell him elf," that is in the 39th verse of thi same 
chapier rends red '"be sold," o: as it is in the or!git7a! (viim- 
iBOch) sell himself ; that is, the very same tree contract, 
and i;ee service, The words tl'en ^'huy'' and sell, are nev- 
«r«se.d Jn ikt Scriptures to denote, or sancti. n such a thing 
as pioperty in man. Neither is there a single instance 
rec< ritid in the word ol God, v\iih the exception (f Joseph 
betng sol I imoEgjpt, of a servant Leing sold by any one 
but h msL'lf Ai.d we challenge Dr. ivaj)hael, and al; pro- 
aiavery men to j)roduce h soiuary t;a.<e eiiner uaJor die Fa- 



21 

triarchal, or the Mosaic systems, in which a master ever 
sold his servant. 

So much then for the word "buy/' and now we shall no- 
tice the 3rd expression ia the passage, viz. "possession," — 
"they shall be your possession." That is, the individuals 
from the heathen round about, who sold themselves, or en- 
gaged by contract ^o be servants to the Hebrews, "they 
shall be your possession." And regarding the word "pos- 
session," in the law^ of Moses, we affirm, that when used in 
the singular it never means property in general. But by 
some "possession" is supposed to mean property ^ and when 
applied to bond-men that tliey were property. We chal- 
lenge Rev. Dr. Raphael, or any other man, to produce one 
single instance, from the law of Moses, where '^'possession" 
is used to signify' personal property or chatties. A man's 
Louse, his ox, or his ass, could not be called according to 
the Mosaic law, his "possession," but his personal property, 
and this he might convey to another, b}^ sale, or bequest j 
but under the law of Moses, the bond-servant never became 
the chattle of a Hebrew, but merely^ his "possession." We 
must ever bear in mind, that the term "possession," in the 
law of Moses, is always used to denote the real estate in- 
terest, or a mere possessory interest, which belonged to the 
individual during the actual possession or occupation of 
the land, but no longer. Thus in Numbers xxvi, 52 — 56: 
"And the Lord spake unto i^'oses saying, unto these the 
land shall he divided for an inheritance, according to the 
nu.iiber of names. To many thou shalt give the more in- 
heritance, and to few thou shalt-give the less inheritance: 
to every one shall his inheritance be given according to 
those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the 
land shall be divided by lot; according to the names of the 
tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the 
lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many 
and few." Now the word "possessioi^' here, is used with 
r^'gard to the land, to teach us, that all the interesi a He- 
brew had in it accrued to him simply by his having it in his 
possession. And in Levit. 25th chapter, where the term 
"possession" is applied to "bond-men and bond-maids," it 



22 

occurs no less than eleven times, and both there, and every 
where else in the Mosaic lav*', it is used in the same sense. 
It is a mistaken opinion then, and in tins is the sophistry 
of Dr. Raphael's, and all pro-slavery arguments, viz. That 
the Hebrews enjoyed the right of selling the land which 
they held in possession, and likewise their boud-servants. 
But no Hebrew had any such right, and for proof of this 
read in Levil, xxv. 23, 24; "The land shall not be sold for 
ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and so- 
journers with me. And in all the land of your possession 
ye shall grant a redemption for the land." No Israelite 
then, from the highest to the lowest, had any right, eith- 
er to sell, or alienate, or in any way part with his "posses- 
sion." He might sell his ox, oi his ass, or any thing that 
was his personal property, but the law gave him no pow- 
er nor right to sell his "jpossession," whether it was bis 
land or his bond-servant. Let Dr. Raphael then, and all 
such know, what the law saith to them that were under it, 
that no Israelite held his "bond-man" as personal property 
or chattle, which he might sell, but just as he held his 
fanded possession, under the positive denial of Almighty 
God, forbidding him to sell, or transfer, in any way, his 
right to another. We may merely add here, that the He- 
brew for "possession," is achusoh, and is the same word 
that is used, whether it be the land, or the bond-servant 
that is denominated the "possession." 

But let us now notice the 4th expression in the passage, 
viz. "inheritance," — "ye shall take them as an i?iheritance 
for your children after you, toinherit them for a possession." 
"We have already considered the tenure of the "possession," 
and showed that "bond-men" could not be held as a ;jroj5- 
erty possession; and that they were in no sense chatties. 
And now we ask, were the benefits de; ived from the servi- 
ces of the bond-servants as a possession to be an "inheri- 
tance," such that the l#w authorized the master by his tes- 
tamentary will to bequeath the interest he had in them to 
his children alter him as his heirs throughout their gener- 
ations'? To this we have no hesitation in asserting that 
under the law of iVloses there could be no hereditary sla- - 



23 

very; the servants were not accounted jrroperty, and hence 
there coukl be no hereditary property in them. Such being 
the case then, it jnay still be asked, what are w-e to under- 
stand by the phrase, "to inherit," and "inheritance?" We 
answer, that to "inherit," means to enjoy, and "inheritance," 
that which is enjoyed. Thus in Numbers xxxii. IS, it is 
said, "We will not return unto our houses, until the child- 
ren of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance," 
that is, appropriated to themselves the land for a posses- 
sion, not by the testamentary will of their ancestors, but as 
a free gilt from the Almighty who gave the land to Abra- 
ham and his seed for a possession. The land did not be- 
Jong to them by the will or testament of their parents, but 
by virtue of their heirship in being the children of Abra- 
ham; and so Avas it also with regard to their bond-servants. 
But some one may say, the cases are not parallel, for the 
master paid his money for his bond servant, which he did 
not do for the land, and hence the servant was his by rio-ht 
of purchase. Well grant this, and then the objection will 
overthrow the thing sought to be established, viz. that the 
use and services of the bond-servant were hereditary, be- 
cause he was a purchased possession, and therefore the child- 
ren of the parent or purchaser could not claim them by 
right of inheritance. But the fact is, the expression "an 
inheritance for your chidren after you to inherit them for 
a possession," refers not to the bondservants themselves, but 
to the nations round about them from whence they were to 
obtain their bond-men and bond-maids. Let us, however, 
see from the Sacred Scriptures, if the words "iwAenY," and 
^' inheritance,^^ are used in the sense of articles of propei'ty, 
or chatties. Now the Hebrew words for "inherit," and "in- 
heritance," are nachal, and nachalfem; and let us see their 
meaning; in the word of God. Thus for example, in Ex. 
xxxiv. 9, it is said, "0 Lord, pardon our iniquity and our 
sin, and take us for thine inheritance.^' Now is it true, 
that when God pardons the iniquity of his people, and 
adopts them into his family, that he makes them articles of 
property, or chaltlesl Again in ii Chron. x. 16, it is writ- 
ten, "the people answered the king (Rehoboara) saying, 



24 

Avhat portloHi have we in David? and we have none inheri- 
tance (cheiick) in the son of Jesse." Now did they mean 
by this, that they disowned holding the king any longer as 
chattlc, or an article of property'i The same thing we have 
in Ps. ii. 8, and Ezek, xliv. 27, 28. The terms then to "in- 
herit," and "an inheritance for your children after you," 
do not mean, that tlie law of Moses gave any license or iiu- 
tliority for parents or masters of bond-servants, to bequeath 
them, as Dr. Raphael says, to their children after their death 
"forever," as an inheritance. 

But we will now notice the 5tb and last expression in 
the passage, viz. "forever," — "they shall be your bond-men 
(leaulom)/or ever."" And before w^e make any remarks on 
the word "forever," it is worthy of notice, that in Lev. xxv. 
46, the word hond-mcn is inserted in the English version, 
but there is not only no such word, but nothing answering 
to it, in the original Hebrew. Instead then of reading it 
as it is in the English version, "they shall be your bond- 
men forever," it is, "they shall be yours forever," that is, 
the heathen nations from w'lience by contract you shall ob- 
tain your bond-men and bond-maids, or your servants. But 
Dr. Raphael does not tell us of this mistake; no, but he 
ciuotes the passage as if there was a corresponding word in 
the Hebrew for ^'hond-mcn:' In charity to Dr. Raphael 
we will suppose that he was ignorant of it, and yet we can 
scarcely suppose that it escaped his notice, only it did not 
suit his purpose to direct attention to it. But now for the 
word "forever." And the term "forever" is quoted to prove 
that the bondau • of servants was jyeiyetual; that they were 
to serve during heir whole life time, and if they survived 
their owners, liat both they and their children, if any, 
should be bequ( ithcd from parent to children, from genera- 
tion to general: >n. Forever always means throughout the 
lerra. Sometia: i it means eternity; and sometimes, defined 
portions of ti; ic. But Dr. Raphael's theory, and slave- 
holders in gcntral, that the phrase here means for life, is 
utterly impossible. Forever is never once used in the law 
of Moses to signify a m?n's life-time; no, never. No such 
idea, as that advanced by Dr. Raphael, is contained in the 



2o 



ioassage, nor any Avhere in the law of Moses on the subject 
of sen-itude. It may then be asked, what is its real im- 
pDit 01- meaning? We answer that if the word (leaulom) 
'•forever" is to be read in connection \vith the last claiise 
of the verse, then it means that the duration of their ser- 
vice must cease in the Jubilee; and the "forever" refers 
to the period from the commencement of their servitude 
until tlie Jubilee, when it should terminate if master and 
servant lived till then. Now for proof of this observe, 
that the term forever is used both with reference to the He- 
brew fcvvant and the heathen bond-man. Thus in Ex. 
xxi. 6, ''Then bis master shall bring him unto tbe.judges^ 
he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post: 
and bis master sball bore his ear through with an awl; and 
he shall serve him (leaulom) "/ortTcr." Now it is admitted 
on all bands, that this passagrg refers to the Ihhrcw servant, 
Avho, after the expiration of bis six years service, volunta- 
rily agreed to serve his master till the Jubilee. And it is 
also agreed on all hands, without a single exception, even 
by Dr. Raphael, that the Hebrew servant could not be a 
slave but it be agreed to the /orercr servio', that is, till tli^ 
Jubilee, then in the Jubilee he was free. But the cases 
are precisely parallel, and the language is exactly the same 
in the oricrinal Hebiew with respect to the Hehrew servant 
and the hcaihm hond-man. To see this read Ex. xxk 6, 
and Levit. xxv. 46; together; thus, '^and he (the Hebrew 
servant) shall serve him (leaulom) forever.'- And they 
shall be your bond-men (leaulom) forever^ Now wHh 
regard to the Hehreiv servant, in the first passage, it 3S a.- 
lowed, and cannot be denied, that forever means t.li the 
Jubilee, when he becpme free; and no master could hold 
any servant one hour longer than that period. And with 
respect to the heathen bond-raan, in the second passage 
where it is said, -they shall be your bond-.nen forever, a 
must mean till the Jubilee, when they became free, .nd 
could not be detained one hour' longer. Besides, as we 
have already said, the word hond-men is not m the original 
in Levit XXV 46. And hence it should be read as in Ex. 
C-^'-lhpy shall serve you (leaulom) lorever, " 



XXI. 



26 

that is, as the Hebrew servant, till tlu Juhileey but 
no lonQ;er. 

But farther, if the word "forever" is to be placed at the 
close of the verse which it qualifies, then it means the per- 
petuity of the statute during that dispensation. As much 
as to sa}', "here is an edici allowing you to take bond-ser- 
vants of the heathen round about you, and this ye are priv- 
ileged and permitted to do during the whole of this dispen- 
sation, even forever. Now that this is the meaning of the 
phrase "forever," is evident from other passages where the 
word is used. Thus in Ex. xii. 14. The Almighty says 
concerning the Passover, "ye shall keep it a feast to the 
Lord throughout your generations: ye shall keep it a feast 
by an ordinance (aolom) forever. It is evident then, that 
the word (aolom) "forever" here means, the continuance of 
the passover feast during that dispensation. And in Ex. 
xxvii. 21, it is said, "it shall be a statute jorevcr (aolom) 
unto their generations on behalf of the children of Israel." 
That is, the children of Israel were "'to bring pure oil-dive 
beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always. It 
t^hall be a statute forever f' evidently meaning during 
that dispensation. Also in Ex. xxviii. 43, "it shall be a 
statute forever unto him, and his seed afier him." That 
is, during that dispensation Aaron and his sons should put 
on "the linen breeches" when they came near unto the al- 
tar to minister. And on the same thing see in Levit. vi. 
18, vii. 34, 36. Numb, xviii. 23. The whole then of the 
passage may be summed up and paraphrased thus; "of the 
heathen that are round about you, and of the strangers that 
do sojourn among you; of them, and of their families that 
are with you, ye shall procure, by contract, both thy bond- 
men and thy bond-maids for servants; and they shall be 
your possession, not as articles of property or chatties, but 
by the same tenure that you hold your land possessions. 
And ye shall as heirs, by virtue of being the descendants 
of Abraham, possess yourselves of them, with your child- 
ren after you, for the heathen nations are given you as an 
inheritance, and ye shall enjoy the possession forever, dur- 
ing the whole of the present dispensation, and ye shall 
serve vourselves of or with them." 



27 

We have spent more time on this passage than we at first 
intended; but as it is the strong-hold for philo-slavery men 
we considered it necessary, before we revie-sved the remain- 
ing part of the Dr's. discourse. Seeing then that the pas- 
sage gives no countenance to the idea of ckattle-jjroperti/ 
in slaves, nor yet to the ■perpetuity or hereditament in sla- 
very; we are the better pi spared for demolishing the su- 
perstructer raised thereon. 

The Dr. then goes on and says, "If his heathen slave 
ran away or strayed from home, every Israelite w^as bound 
to bring or send him back, as he would have to do any 
other portion of his neighbour's property that had been 
lost or strayed. (Deut. xxii. 3.) Now, you may, perhaps, 
ask me how I can reconcile this statement with the text of 
Sciipture so Irequently quoted against the Fugitive Slave 
law, "Thou shalt not surrender unto his master the slave 
who is escaped from his master unto thee." Deut. xxiii. 15. 
We have already convicted the Dr. of taking from the 
word of God, and here he is guilty of an equally egregious 
crime, that of adding to the Sacred Scriptures; and that 
too for the purpose of supporting and defending one of the 
greatest sins that ever disgraced the character of man. 
Read the* words as we find them in Deut. xxii. 3; but mis- 
quoted by the Dr. He»re they are, "In like manner shalt 
thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment; 
and with all lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, 
and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest 
not hide thyself." He says this p?roves, that "if his heath- 
en slave ran away or strayed from home, every Israelite 
was bound to bring or send him back, as he would have to 
do any other portion of his neighbour's property that had 
been lost or strayed." But we ask, is the word slave, or * 
servant, or bond-man, or bond-maid, mentioned in the 
whole of the passage? Most unquestionable not; but cau- 
tiously excluded by the great Lawgiver, the God of heaven. 
And yet this Jewish Rabbi would dare to amend, (as he 
foolishly supposes) the word of the living God by foisting 
into the passage the word slave. Many a poor fellow is 
serving out his term in the penitentiary for forgery not half 



28 

so criminal or so daiingly reckless. In verse 1st of tlie 
^i^a.iie cliapter, it is the "ox or the sheep," that is to bo re- 
turned to the owner, if they have strayed; and in v. 3rd; 
''In like manner slialt Ihou do v/itli his ass, and so shalt 
thou do with his raiment." But not one v.-orcl about slaves, 
or servants, or bond-men; and why? Evidently because 
they were not to be returned, and so the Almiglity says in 
Beut. xxiii. 15; "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master 
t,he servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." 
And the Apostle Paul in i Cor. vii. 21; says, "Art taou 
called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest 
foe made free, use it rather," That is, as Dr. Scolt says, 
^^if he had a fair- opportunity of obtaining his freedom, he 
'vvould do well to embrace it." But perhaps the Dr. may 
:say, the expression, "all lost ihing of thy brothers," must 
"mean his slaves or his servants. This however we deny; 
and when the Spirit of God has occasion to mention the 
servants of a man he specifies them as separate or distinct 
from his ox, or his ass, or any of his chattle property. 
Thus for instance in the Tenth commandment; "Thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy 
neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-ser- 
vant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy 
neighbour's." And farther, the words "all lost thing of 
thy brothers," is compared to and put in the same catego- 
ry with his "ox, or h's sheep, his ass and his raiment." 
And in the parallel passage in Ex. xxiii. 4, 5, the "ox or 
Ills ass going astray, fliou shalt surely bring it back to him 
again, ' but no mention of the servants or bond-men. And. 
I would here afhrm. from the Dr's. own statement in llie 
sermon, that had it not have been for the "vail upon his 
, heart," he never could for a moment suppose, that the word 
'''thing" meant a man's slaves or his servants. Hear his 
own language, he says, "the slave is a person in whom 
the dignity of human nature is to be respected; he has 
rights. Wheieas the heathen view oi slavery which pre- 
vailed at Rome, and which I am sorry to say, is adopted 
in the South, reduces the slave to a thing, and a thing can* 
have no rights." Kow has not the Dr. here plainly con- 



29 

demned his own exposition of the text, and in the lan- 
guage of the Psalmist we may justly say of him, "the 
words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit," Vs. xxxvi. 3. 
We will now show the falsity of the Dr's. exposition by 
confrontincT him with what the Misnah of his own (the Jew- 
ish) church says on this passage. The Misnah, be it ob- 
served, is the oral law of the Jewish church, and is pre- 
ferred by them to the written law, the Scriptures of truth. 
A writer of their own, (R. Sangaii) says of it, "the brevi- 
ty cf its words, the elegance of its composition, and its 
beautiful order, if a man looks upon them, must own, that 
flesh and blood could never compose any thing like it, bui 
by divine assistance." • Now in the Misnah C. 2. Sect. 9, 
on this passage in Deut. xxii. 3, it is asked, "v,^hat is a lost 
thing?" and it answers, "if a man finds an ox or a cow 
feeding in the way, this is not a lost thing; but an ass 
whose instruments are inverted, and a cow running: anione: 
the vineyards, this is a lost thing." But there is not one 
word in the Misnah about bond-men or slaves as included 
in the word "thing" With respect then to domestic ani- 
mals going astray, the law was express in requiring every 
Israelite to use proper means to restore them to their own- 
er. But we find no such Jaw for compelling runaway 
slaves or bond-men to be forced back when once they have 
escaped and obtained their freedom; and the absence of 
such a command in the Mosaic law is of itself evidence 
that Jehovah designed their emancipation. But we are 
not left here to grope our way in the dark on this subject, 
we have the positive law of God himself saying in Deut. 
xxiii. 15, IG, 'Thoa shalt not deliver unto his master the 
servant which is escaped fiom his master unto tLee: he 
shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which 
he shall choose in one of thy gates^ where it liketh him 
best: thou shalt not oppress him." Now on this passage 
Dr. R. says, "all legists applies this text to a heathen slave 
who from any ioreign country escapes Irom his master, 
even though that master be an Hebrew, residing out of the 
land of Israel. Such a slave — and such a slave only is to 
find a permanent asylum in any part of the country he ftiay 



30 

choose." But to prove the fallacy of this statement, I will 
here again confront the Dr. with the opinion of a very 
learned Jewish expositor on this passage. I mean Jarchi; 
and on Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, he says, "this is to be under- 
stood of a Canaanitish servant of an Israelite that flees 
(from his master) without the laud, where he was not 
obliged to go with him, and serve him against his will." 
Now this completely overthrows the groundless assertion 
of Dr. R. viz. that "it applies to a heathen slave from a 
foreign country," for Jarchi says, it refers to "a Canaani- 
tish servant of an Israelite." 

But that the law in the passage is to be limited to runa- 
Vi^ay slaves from the heathen, as Dr. R. says, we shall now 
show to be false. And 1st. There is nothing in the lan- 
guage to limit its meaning, nor in the connection in which 
it is found; it is not restricted to any class cf servants, 
neither from the heathen any more than from an Israelite. 
And 2nd. There is no allusion in the passage to foreign 
masters, nor to the tenure by which they held their servants; 
neither is there any thing in the whole history of the Mo- 
saic law to limit this command to the case of servants es- 
caping from foreign masters. The assumption then of Dr. 
R. is wholly gratuitous, and as far as the word of God is 
concerned, without the shadow of evidence. We are clear- 
ly taught by it, that escape from bondage was not a crime, 
but the exercise of a natural and equitable right, neither 
was it criminal to harbor the runaway wdio v,as escaping 
from oppression; and what was commanded on the ground 
of its being oppression, would also be oppression to a ser- 
vant fleeing from a Hebrew mastei, as well as to one flee- 
ing from a heatijen master. 

But suppose we admit the Dr's. exposition, it avails him 
after all nothings it merely removes the difficulty to anoth- 
er point. For, jf the law of God held the broad shield 
of its protection over the free choice of a single serva?if 
from the heathen, how could it command the same persons 
to depress the free choice of thousands of servants from the 
heathen. That is, if a servant of his free choice escaping 
fiom a foreign master to ihc Israelites, is not to be returned 



31 

back again to his master, but is to enjoy his liberty, and 
dwell where he choosesj how could the same servant, if 
instead of coming into Israel of his free choice, he had 
been kidnapped and sold to an Israelite, be held in bond- 
age, and if he escapes be forced back again under the 
yoke of oppression. Ezek, xiii. 18. And farther here ob- 
.serve, the command was not merely, "Thou sbalt not de- 
liver him to his master," but "he (the servant) shall dwell 
with thee, in that place which he shall chcose in one of the 
gates where it liketh him best." Here every Israelite was 
required to respect his free choice, and to put him in no 
condition against his will. And was not this plainly the 
mind and will of GoJ, that those who chose to bve in the 
land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to 
dispose of their services as could best be egreed on, and 
to such as they pleased. 

But let us examine a little farther this supposition of Dr. 
R. viz. that "a slave from a foreign country who escapes 
from his master, should not be delivered unto his master; 
even though that master be an Hebrew, residing out of the 
land of Israel." Now this must mean, either that the Bible 
sanctions slavery 07}ly in the land of Israel; or, that it would 
be sinful to hold slaves in any other land except the land 
of Israel. We maintain then, that the Dr's, statement 
must mean one or other of these two things, or both. But 
if the first, viz, that the Bible sanctions slavery only in the 
land of Israel, then it is evident, that slavery is not sanc- 
tioned, ncr legalized by the word of God either in Ameri- 
ca, or in any other part of the world, but in the land of Is- 
rael, and such being the case there is no divine warrant for 
American slavery, But if the other, viz. that it is sinful 
to hold slaves in any other country but Israel, or the land 
of Judea; and that the word of God forbids to return "a 
heathen slave who from any foreign country escapes from 
his master," then it is evident, that to return a runaway 
slave, by compulsion, to his master is sinful. But what 
the law of God, the infallible standard of right, and only 
rule of faith and practice, declares to be sinful in one 
country, must be so in every country, and binding on every 



32 

individual favored with that law. Were this not so, then a 
holy and righteous Gcd lowers the standard of rectitude to 
suit the wishes of avaricious men, and grants to sinners a 
license to commit iniquity, and to "continue in sin, that 
{Trace may abound." But snail wc believe this? "God for- 
bid." And yet we must so believe, and so act, if the 
teachings of Dr. R. arc to be credited. But thank God, 
"we have a more sure word of pro])hecy; vvhereunlo ye do 
well that ye take heed." And "we have not so learned 
Moses, nor the prophets, nor Christ Jesus." 

But ior support of the Dr's. (lieory, let us hear him in the 
following avgument. He says, "This interpretation is fully 
borne out by the vi'ords of the precept; the pronoun 'thou' 
is not here used in fhe same sense as in the Ten command- 
ments. There it designates every soul in Israel; but here, 
the pronoun Mhou' used in this precept designates the whoie 
people of Israel." "Who shall escape unto thee" like- 
wise meaning the whole people, and not a portion of the 
people, in opposition to another pait of the people. And 
as the expression remains the same throughout the precept, 
"with thfe he shall dwell even among } ou iji the place he 
.shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh Lim best,"' 
it plainly shows that the whole of the land was open to him, 
and the whole of the people were to piotect the fugitive, 
which could not have been carried out if it had applied to 
the slave wlio escupcd from oj^c tribe into the tenitory of 
another." What seems to be intended by all this is, that 
Ike moral law, "summarily comprehended in the Ten com- 
mandments," was ,iven to, and binding only upon a portion 
of the people; bi;' that the precept contained in the judi- 
cial law, "{how >hslt not surrender unto his master the 
slave who is esca; d from his master unio thee," is more 
comprehensive, ; ;id designates the rvhole of the people. 
Hear the Dr's. o\'. ;i words, "the projioun thov^- that is, in 
the Ten coinmari(.;Qents, "designates eveiV soul in Israel, 
but the pronoun '.hou' used in this precejti (Dent, xxiii. 15, 
]C,) designates 1 he whole people of Lratl." Now what 
is the diiterence in limitation or extention, between the 
"every soul in Isiael,''' and "the whole people of Israel," it 
e 



33 

is dillicull;, I confess, to determine. But headJs, "who 
shall escape unto thee, likewise meaning the whole people, 
and not a portion of the people, in opposition to another 
part of the people." Now this statement shows us, that 
the Dr. considers tlje precept in Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, to com- 
prise more than the Ten commandments; or, he considers, 
the judicial law of the Jewish nation to be more compre- 
hensive than the moral law. From the Dr's. language thts 
can only be his meaning. But is this the case? We have 
been accustomed to consider, that the Ten commandmciita 
■were delivered to Moses, and the whole children of Israel, 
at mount Sinai; and that the ceremonial and judicial laws, 
were giafted upon the moral law, the ceremonial upon tht' 
fust table, and the judicial upon the second. But the se- 
cret of the l)r\s. exposition about the two "thous" comes 
out in what he farther adds. "Had (says he) the precept/' 
(that is in Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, "thou shalt not surrender 
unto his master the servant which is escaped from his mas- 
ter unto thee,") **been expounded in any other than, it& . 
strictly literal sense it Avould have caused great confueiofi, 
since it wouhl have nullified two other precepts of God'*; 
law — that which directs that 'slaves,' like lands and hous- 
es, were to be disinherited forever, and that which com- 
mands property, lost or strayed, to be restored to the own- 
er." Now from this, it is manifest, the Dr. had to manu- 
facture something to make his favorite scheme of slavery 
tally, as he supposed, with the word ot God; and hence he 
tries to draw tlic "vail" over others, that "their minds" 
may also be "blinded." The sophism ot the Dr. here is 
this; that "slaves and houses" and vsheep and as«es are 
properly equal and alike; and that a slave is "a thing" a 
mere chaltle. Bui this we have already exjdained 'm our 
remarks on Lev it. xxv. 4-1 — 46, and lumce we may reply 
to the whole of llie Dr's. reasoning, in the language of 
Isaiah, he "has been in pain, he has as it were brought 
forth wind; and he has not wrougbt any deliverance in the 
earth," 

But to sum up all, the Dr. closes with three cxampks; 
the first is, that "the runaway from Edom or Syria fouad 



34 

an asylum in the laud of Israel, as tlie runaway slave from 
Cuba or Brazil would find in New York." But why select 
New York, and not say some of the slave states? Would, 
we ask, a runaway slave from Cuba or Brazil find an asy- 
lum, and be allowed to live in any part he might choose in 
South Carolina, or Georgia, or Kentucky? Why a/rce 
negro would not find a safe asylum much less "a runaway." 
W^itness, for example, the free negro law passed at the last 
session of the Kentucky Legislature. It makes it a felony 
punishable with imprisonment in the penitentiary, for a 
free iiegro to enter the state for the purpose of residing 
therein. And one section of the statute actually prohibits 
free negroes that have left the state from returning again; 
and this law is now in full force in that state. Talk then 
about ''runaway negroes" finding an asylum in slave states; 
why you may as well talk of human beings finding an asy- 
lum in the bottomless J5it with the devil and his angels. 

But the second example of the Dr's. is, "Shiinei reclaim- 
ed and recovered his runaway slaves from Achish, king ol 
Gath, at that time a vassal of Israel; i Kings ii. 39, 40." 
True, we say, Shimei did follow after two of his servants 
to bring them back; and this is the only instance recorded 
in the whole word of God of slave-bunting. But who, we 
ask, was this Shimei? We reply, on the authority of the 
Sacred Scriptures, that he was a perjured liar, a condemned 
hypocrite, and an irreverent blasphemer. Read the account 
given of him in ii Samuel xvi. 5 — 8. i Kings ii. 8, 9, 
With all our heart we make a present of Shimei to Dr. 
Raphael, and in him he will no doubt sec a striking type 
of Southern .slave-hunters. What! Shimei an example to 
imitate; a man who cast stones at king David, and cursed 
"the Lord's anointed." Truly it is no wonder his servants 
ran away from him, if his conduct to them resembled his 
wickedness to the man after God's own heart. Besides 
this, Dr. R. should have told us the doom he met in conse- 
quence of hunting his servants. In i Kings ii. 41, it is 
said, "and it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from 
Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again." That was, as 
Dr. R, soys, "to hunt his slaves." But wa;; this a sufhcient 



35 

excuse to olFer king Solomon? or, did Shimei plead in bis 
defence any fugitive slave law of either God or man for 
justification, or extenuation of his conduct? No, he was 
silent; and hence it is recorded, "the king commanded 
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell 
upon him, that he died." And so that was what Shimei, 
Dr. R's. slave-holder, got for "hunting slaves." 

But the Dr'a. third, and last example, is, the case of the 
Apostle Paul and Onesimus; he says, "and Saul of Tarsus 
sent back the run::way slave Onesimus unto his owner Phil- 
emon." Now the whole account of this transaction we 
have recorded in the epistle of Paul to Philemon; and as 
much stress is laid upon it by philo-slavery men, both Jew 
and Gentile, permit us in conclusion to notice it a little. 
And here it is to be noticed, that if ever Onesimus was the 
slave of Philemon, in the strict sense of the word, it does 
not appear from the language of the epistle; all that ap- 
pears is this, that he was an unconverted servant when he 
left Philemon. Just read the epistle — there are but 25 ver- 
ses in the whole — and then see if there be any thing in it 
like slaveholding, slavery, or fugitive slave law. Had Paul 
caught Onesimus as a runaway slave from Philemon a slave- 
holder, and sent him word, we might well hear him in his 
epistle \ise some such language as the following. "Phile- 
mon, my good fellow, I have caught your fugitive slave 
Onesimus, and I am happy to inform you without incurring 
the expense of engaging a pack of keen-scented blood 
hounds to hunt him up. The rascal was lurking about the 
city Rome, and I got the Marshall and a posse of police to 
handcuff and drag the scoundrel before the Recorder; and 
I tell you Philemon, thoxmagiitrates did their duty in noble 
style. They at once ordered the victim to be bound with 
chains, and sent back as a slave to his master. And when 
you receive him, my advice is, to gather all your other 
slaves together, and tie him with strong ropes to a stake 
fastened in the ground; but be sure and first strip him na- 
ked, and then make the rest of the slaves inflict, at least, 
200 lashes on his bare flesh until the blood shall flow from 
neck to heel, and in this condition send him to the field of 



36 

unreciuilcd toil, and there make liiin work with the other 
iield liands This Philemon is what the law of God sane- 
lions, and you know our blessed Redeemer never said a 
•word against slavery, neither do we his commissioned Apos- 
tles. Now fail not ray brave Philemon to support the hon- 
or and majesty of the divine law, be sure and punish the 
runaway lo your heart's content, and at the same time 
don't forget to send me 25 or 30 pieces of silver for my 
trouble in catching the fugitive." Now is there any thing 
3 ike this in Paul's epistle to Philemon concerning Oncsi- 
mus? Not one syllable; but hear what the Apostle says. 
At y. 13th. "Whom I would have retained," observe, would 
have done it, and could have done it, for the liw of God 
has said, '*Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the ser- 
vant which is escaped from his master unto thee." But 
why then did Paul send him back when the law said, that 
he should and could "retain" him? The Apostle immedi- 
.ately answers this, and gives the reason for sending Lim 
hack, he says at v. 1 6th "Thou shouldst receive him, not 
now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." 
Here Paul tells Philemon that he is now to receive him 
"not as a servant, but a brother." Observe, as a servant, 
Onesiraus was "noV^ to be received; as "a brother," he 
was. The Apostle says, he ^vas now to be elevated "above 
;a servant;" and at v. 12th he tells us how much "above a 
servant," for he fays, "thou therefore receive him, that is, 
mine own bowels." He was to receive him as he naturally 
-wouid a S071 of the Aposile; and then farther adds at v. 
17th, "receive him ns myself." Now I know that to all 
this, Dr. R. and philo-siavery advocates, will say, "yes 
Philemon was to receive Oiie>imus as a brother spiritually, 
but he was at the same time to use him as a slave cariially. 
That is, lie might go to ch. rch with Philemon, or kneel 
"with him in the prayer- meeting, spiriiually; and then he 
might whip him and seH him when he got him home, car- 
nally. But the Spiiit of God foresaw all such miserable 
subterfuges as these, and hence ihe Apostle says at v. 16th, 
^'receive him as a brother beloved, both in the flesh and in 
ihe Lord."" That is. in all the relations of life, both as a 



331::::, 



.-> 1 



k>« i«.J U C/«./ </J(.tw/ta 



But some one n:ay say, that all this goes to prove, that 
Onesimus was a slave to Philemon, in the strict sense of 
the word, when he ran awny. By no mean?, this we deny, 
and so the i'\postIe guards us against any such a supposition- 
He says at v. 18th and 19th "If he hath wronged thee, or 
oweth thee ought, put t]i?t on mine account; I Paul have 
writlen it with mine own hand, I will ropay it." Now is 
not this language wholly inconsistent with the idea that 
Onesimus ever was a slavp to Philemon. If Paul had be- 
lieved that it was right to hold men as propeity, or that 
Onesimus was rightfully held as a slave, bow could behave 
doubted that he owed his master service for life? As a 
slave, could Onesimus owe any thing but service for life? 
Or, if Paul believed slaveholding right, would he have re- 
quired of Philemon to give up his rightful claim of service? 
One of two things here must be true; viz. either Onesimus 
was not a slave, or the Apostle believed slaveholding sin- 
ful, and that slaves ought to be freed. But bad Onesimus 
been a slave in the strict sense, then the Apostle would 
have said, "receive him not now as a slave, (andrapodon) 
but above a slave;" instead of sayin^^, receive him "not 
now as a servant, (Joules) but above a servant." Dr. R. 
and all the advocates of slavery go on the supposition, that 
in the word of God, servant means slave, and master means 
slaveholder; and also that these terms are correlative and 
convertible. But this is a most erroneous opinion. The 
term servant occurs in the Scriptures about 122 times; but 
the word, de.^nitely meaning a slave, does not once occur 
in the whole Bible. A slave is andrapodon, from aner a 
man, and pous the foot. And the term for slaveholding is 
once, and only once, found in the New Testament. In i 
Tim. i. 9, 10, it is said, "the law is not made for a rigfhte- 
ous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, and for men- 
stealers," &c. Now here slaveholders are classed with 
"murderers, whoremongers, the lawless and disobedient," 
and against whom the just judgments of heaven are de- 
nounced in the most awful and e.'?plicit terms. The word 
in the original is andrapodistais, and literally means men 
dealers, of slaveholders, but rendered "menstealers/' be- 



mmZl °'' CONGRESS 

■M. 



J 



J 



HoUinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3'1955 



